Skip to main content

tv   The Gavin Newsom Show  Current  September 21, 2012 11:00pm-12:00am PDT

11:00 pm
ng quote/unquote quote/unquote. why? look what women did to his penis. i'm going to leave it right there. you guys have an excellent weekend, and we'll see you all on monday. my first guest is rarely seen on tv you about, now that mark zuckerberg has done dunn his 50 interview. he had yacht is hoo every to talk about it. with clint eastwood's bizarre tacks, his latest movie. trouble with the curve is opening tonight.
11:01 pm
find out how director robert lawrence feels about clint's extracurricular activities and how the inning visit i believe obama incident might impact his movie. finally, the future of edge indication is always on my minds minds. actually knight today for his efforts. allow much more reindicate at this time in our schools but we begin with facebook. elliot, it's great to have you on the show. >> happy to be here. >> gavin: is it a bigger challenge that suck success in many ways scrutiny, folks like me in public life looking down, issues, i don't want to bud you with aburdenyou, interact with elects officials, billions of dollars cash, expected to spend it, and people can criticize instagram worth $740 million versus now the billion and it was valdiron. what's the challenge of success
11:02 pm
from your enter tech sniff. >> weperspective. >> we had lots of conversation about his whether being public would change us. in many of the ways that you were suggesting. even in talking from my role, which has been a role that manages our external relationships with the press with people -- individual citizens with users governments and regulators. i think it's wrong to suggestion there is a transformation now that we are a public company. to be sure there is another audience, constituency of investors. but as you know, we were pretty thoroughly scrutinized by regulators in the united states and europe as a private company. >> gavin: of course. >> even my joke was we were the most public, private company in history. there was a secondary market where people were buying and selling shares in facebook. there was the amount of attention that was directed at us whenever there was some kind of transaction whether it was an acquisition or an investment.
11:03 pm
just this extraordinary attention. now, obviously the dynamics have changed a little. but it's not as if, you know, we woke up one morning and all of a sudden you know, we were surprised that people were interested. before -- the day before we went public, we still had hundreds of millions of people using our service every day that's what generates lots of interest and attention. much more than the financial level. >> gavin: mark zuckerberg comes out and gives i thought a very good presentation at tech crunch and clearly the market responded in kind. the stock -- >> it was a pretty remarkable reaction. what was nice about it was you could tell if you were there and i know you were, but the people watching could tell, that he wasn't talking to wall street, he was talking to an audience that really knows him. and that he cares about. the people in that room are entrepreneurs, developers, people that really care about bringing new technology to the world. and much more than focused on, you know making money today on
11:04 pm
what are the kind of technologies they can make to change the world. >> gavin: so that's the great challenge, isn't it? it's the perennial challenge, a question that you have to deal with all the tile on behalf of facebook. private company, you have the luxury of time. >> right. >> gavin: you know, you certainly have your own internal shareholder issue. once you become public it's quarter to quarter. how do you maintain the culture that made facebook such a dominant presence, how do you maintain that culture so that mark comes out and says, you know what, i am not changing, i am the same person that still have the markets respect and taarabt and shareholders understand and respect it? >> it really comes down to being authentic and transparent and communicating what you are trying to do. and frankly having a structure corporate structure fukudome thatthatmatches. no one will accuse mark of being unclear, that his passion is the mission of facebook to make
11:05 pm
the world more open and connected. i don't know reading the letter that he wrote that was included in the prospectus can doubt that his priority, he put it very well. he said, you know, we don't -- we don't make products to make money. we make money to make products. >> gavin: and he's sincere about that, you know him well, you need to tell me that anyway. but i can just -- >> absolutely. when you look at the history of the company, you see that there were always opportunities to race ahead and off products that would make money. his focus is his strong belief. and i don't want to distinguish only mark, i think a lot of companies in the valley are like that. i think he firmly believes that the way you build a lasting successful long-term business is by offering people great products and services. and if you build great products and services, you'll be able to find a way to make a lot of money. >> gavin: what's the take away from your perspective? as a communications person, i mean is he -- i mean, sandberg, of course, prolific, and
11:06 pm
markably gifted. and excels. but at the end of the day, is it not mark's company that he needs to be the one that's out there and aggressively making the case? >> you know, it's absolutely mark's company. but, you know, the structure of the company gives him the flexibility to focus much more on the long-term than other company's ceo's have. he has a voting control of facebook shares. and so he doesn't have to worry to the same extent about next quarter's earnings, next month's performance. he can make the big bets that he thinks are necessary. i think, you know, the way you demonstrate leadership is not only by going out and talking to everyone about your vision, it's by -- it's by what you deliver. >> gavin: yeah. >> and he's been again very clear that his passion is building the stuff.
11:07 pm
his passion is building an organization that would attracts great engineers great an entrepreneurs, here with the kind of things he's really focused on. he's focused on the fact, you talk about culture, he wants people to come to facebook to be excited about the social mission. to really help change people's lives. and you know, we should talk a little bit about some of the stuff. you know, facebook now with more than 950 million people, has the opportunity to connect people until ways that technology has never done before. you know, we were talking when i saw you last, we were talking about a study that just came out in nature magazine, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world that where some researchers documented that an announcement that your friends were -- have voted in an election increased the chances that you would go vote. the idea of using the technology, the social technology that we have to
11:08 pm
encourage greater participation in civic life, the idea that you see this all over, we have -- we did a program not long ago to encourage people to become organ donors. and you saw the fact that this was being done online, using on lex technologies, created extraordinary opportunities for communities to connect. and what was otherwise viewed as a medical problem, organ, you know, donation really was recognized not as a medical issue, but as a social issue. people not signing up. it's not about the doctors it's about the people signing up. those are the kind of things that he cares about that he wants. and, frankly, i would say all of the peep at facebook want the company to be able to achieve. >> so the big personnel mobile, social mobile, local. >> right. >> gavin: and mark obviously -- >> talks about that. >> gavin: that's the big plan, he made the comment that people may underestimate the
11:09 pm
significance of this. that's i imagine the most dominant and focused now and facebook is moving the transition as we all transition away from the p.c.s to mobile. >> i think people have again commentators, have really underestimated the natural connection between the service that facebook offers and the growing ubiquitous i of mobile devices. facebook is all about interaction, experiences are better when you can share them with your friends or people you care about. >> that's certainly true. >> phones and mobile devices. the phone probably is the most social technology ever created if you think about it what's amazing is how successful facebook has been with a paradigm of i go out and take my pictures, i have to rush back to my computer to up load them. that's an obstacle, that's friction. well imagine how much easier it
11:10 pm
is when you can instantaneously take the picture and share it with your community. when you can look on a map and instantaneously see where your friends are nearby. when you are engaging in activity and you can share the results of that activity, you know, you haven't experienced you are at a restaurant and you can review the restaurant immediately and share it with your friends so his points was that not only does mobile off an extraordinary opportunity to reach lots more people, you you know, i think the prediction is by 2020, 3 billion more people will be connected online as a result of mobile devices. we are coming up close to a billion users. itthe idea of being able to connect that larger population, to join the almost billion we have now that alone is pretty attractive. >> gavin: good point. it wasn't a financial comment as much as, all right increase ad sales is what a lot of focus -- it's a reminder, you reinforced this of that cultural fame, that
11:11 pm
bias that he has to -- i remember larry talking about this do no evil, change the world. that there is sort of a mission. >> do the right thing if you build value for people, value will come back to you. that's essentially the underlying piece -- >> gavin: why not build a smart phone? if mobile is owe important apple, google, but obviously you want to integrate as opposed to actually producing? >> you know, the questioner asked mark that a lot. it was a hume justice colloquy between them. i think mark put it well. he was pretty authentic about it sure, we could build a phone but we have almost a billion people using facebook, if we have a phone and it's wildly successful, we'll have 10 million, 15 million people use it. for lots of other businesses that's an extraordinary success but for us, i think those were his exact words that doesn't mover the needle for us. it's not like there is no value there. but the real challenge is, you
11:12 pm
know is how we can become the social fabric across mobile devices. across all technologies. so that when people are watching television or on a desktop computer or in their cars, they have the ability to share what they are doing and connect to the people around them using the technologies that facebook creates. we have that network that social graph as you calls it or as we call it. of, you know, almost a billion people. how do you create new experiences and new opportunities, you know, as a result. whether it's for commercial purposes and business and advertising, or for personal connections. you can tell a family member that you are going to a location and you can converge on a location. or, you know if all of the many ways, you know, that we have talked about in the past, how you can bring people together for social action. >> gavin: right. >> how government's relationship with the government can
11:13 pm
fundamentally change because so many people are online and can respond instantaneously to what's going on. >> gavin: philanthropy, is there an integration the founders will have their own principle focus. >> sure. >> gavin: is a philanthropic approach a dominant part of the discussion now or is it, again using this tools and technology, collaborative network, distributed base of billions ultimately, to change the world change that interface of government and the governing all these things. >> it's a really good question and something that we have been talking about many of us share you know, me, other people were at google involved working with there are positive lessons from and negative lessons of things that didn't workout as well. as we think about thrill an up there i thephilanthropythe most value that we off nonprofit organizations, social organizations, civil society organizations is the platform.
11:14 pm
is the ability to put up a page for free. the ability to connect to the world of people who are interested in what you are doing for free. the ability to build an application and launch it for free. so that you can begin to harness this technology without the need of a fancy budget. without the need of tremendous technical expertise. so our starting point really is with our platform. how can we create great tools for people that can also be great tools for organizations. >> gavin: yeah. >> it's free for the 950 million people. it's free for the millions of organizations t just as it's free for mall businesses. very much. the focus that we have had really is primarily at this point in helping nonprofit organizations and causes really build out their presence and understand it the free tools that we off. we have a very active program of
11:15 pm
educating nonprofit organizations being of working with foundations that want to encourage nonprofits to use social media that's one very con control area. concrete area, but i think we can do more but but we have been pretty successful in bring ago lost civil society online and engaging in associates media. >> gavin: it's been an extraordinary eight or so year old, proud past, extraordinary present, what a remarkable story this has been, but imagine the future, to be part of that. >> it's very exciting. >> gavin: extraordinary time. the bottom line, wouldn't you agree in the closing seconds you barely have scratched the surface as a platform. >> in terms of the capacity to do things that you can't even conceive of at this moment. >> next time you should have people working on our platform talk to you about it we areing on it and our partners are working on it. >> gavin: elliot thanks for being here. >> great to be here. >> gavin: until then facebook has an new and unlikely poster boy, thanks to social nidia
11:16 pm
clint eastwood's talk at the rnc has been seen by quill millions. millions. his story is true to form. director robert lawrence joins us to talk about his latest collaboration with clint eastwood right after the break. elevator and the workers get the shaft. that is a whole bunch of bunk. the powerful may steal an election, but they can't steal democracy. gaeme inc. thank gaemezilinsky, thank you for joining
11:17 pm
11:18 pm
what we need are people prepared for the careers of our new economy. by 2025, we could have 20 million jobs without enough college graduates to fill them. that's why at devry university we're teaming up with companies like cisco to help make sure everyone's ready with the know how we need for a new tomorrow. [ male announcer ] make sure america's ready. make sure you're ready. at ♪ ♪ (vo) this is joy. >>who the heck does mitt romney think he is? (vo) this is joy on current tv. >>if mitt romney treats his magic underwear the same way as his tax returns, then he's been going commando for the past 10 years. >>since when do you get to say stuff like that on tv? >> listen, if you'd read your email once in a while, you'd know i have a new show. (vo) always outspoken.
11:19 pm
>> sometimes i feel like i don't even know you. >> just stay on your side of the screen, ok? >> gavin: robert lawrence is a long-time clint eastwood producer in fact they have worked together for decades on movies including mystic river million dollars baby and flags of our father but this film is his first time out director's chair. roberts, it's wonderful to have you on the show. 20 years ago you had your eye on being a director. >> i did. >> gavin: you had every conceivable role from assistants to assistants to producer, executive producer, twice nominated for academy awards, you have been with clint eastwood's company. blessed for the last 20 years working directly with clint in all roles. and so why this film? what was it about this film, the screenplay that invited finally
11:20 pm
the opportunity to do this? >> you know, it's really i thought a rich, clear simple, classic story. and i thought it had a broad appeal to a lot of different people. i thought the role was perfect for clint. a lot of different relationships, interesting emotional characters that actors could dive in to. and i thought it would attract some people that we could make a good movie out of. >> gavin: so these scripts come to you and you go out and search for them? who vets them? did you come across and say this is my movie? my directorial debut. >> clint -- we have fortunate that clint attracts a lot of really quality material. and it typically comes to knee, either me or his manager and we read them if we like them we pass them on. this was a girl, a woman been a friend of mine for a long time. producer name michelle wiseler
11:21 pm
who sent me the script. i liked it. >> i thought it would appeal to clint and we worked on it to make it everybody more appealing and we showed it to him and he liked it and the rest is history. >> gavin: when you show him the script, you say here is the good news we have a great script. here is the bad news, you are not directing? >> actually, it was something like that with the video. i gave it to clint and it was for him to do whatever, direct, produce. and star hopefully. and he kind of led everybody along for a little bit even myself. he said he wanted to make the move but he wasn't more specific than that. so the studio was very excited they have another movie clint east word wao*d is going to star in, they have had some success with him lately. they were all gung-ho and about a week or so later he said, why don't you direct it? which was thrilling for me and then we lent the studio know and i think there was a lot of -- everybody sort of proceeds for a moment, but then i guess they figured if clint was comfortable doing it, then it was probably going to be all right. >> gavin: how about you being comfortable. here you are with an icon, not only again in front of the
11:22 pm
camera, but behind the camera, now one of our great directors himself client eastwood and now you are directing him. or are you? >> yeah. >> gavin: duds he say here isdoes i see say what i am going to do or do you tell him what to do? >> i let him do his things. it was daunting. his reputation, his long history, he's other icon so i had that in my mind i tried to push it in the back and remember that we are friends, we both just love being on the set. we lovemaking movies, we have fun together and that's sort of been the key to our success. so went out there and did it. and i tried to direct him the way i have seen him direct others, which is just to sort of let them show you what they've got. and if it needs adjustment, go from there. but try not to interfere. >> gavin: in terms of the cast, it's a remarkable cast beyond just client eastwood, we have amy adams john goodman and justin timberlake. which begs the question, clint
11:23 pm
eastwood and justin timberlake, i couldn't say that would be on my short list. what was the chemistry like? >> i thought story had appeal and i wanted it to have broad appeal in terms of the cast so i was looking really diversify. clint's name is what attracted all of these great people. it wasn't a chance to rob on a rob lorenz movie. but it was great. amy adams is somebody that i have long admired. i think they just disappears in to every role she has so i was thrilled to get her. and justin, he just had the right combination of charm and energy and likability that i needed for this role. >> gavin: and so in the past, mine, is it a collaborative process of determining who is to play particular roles? or it really is the director's responsibility? >> yeah, it's the director. clint is a very khra*p collaborative guy so i have had a lot of experience over the years working on his films he always makes me a part of the
11:24 pm
casting process we go in and talk and so forth. but when the time comes to make a decision it's always been his choice. so in this case, it was mind. >> gavin: how important just for the lay people out there. how important are those decisions, versus the screenplay itself versus candidly the capacity of the director to make magic? >> yeah, well, it's a combination. it's everything together. and the casting i think is of critical importance. and clint would have said the same thing. if you cast a movie well, the rest of it will take care of itself. really that's what people come to the movies for is to relate to these people and feel their emotions and if you don't have the right cast, you just can't -- nothing else seems to work. >> gavin: and in terms of clint himself, obviously, you know, self heself-evident all of the focus on the convention. >> right. >> gavin: invariably every interview you will get asked the question, did you watch clint at the republican convention? what do you think?
11:25 pm
you are promoting this move and it's movie is coming out this evening. have you have you handled that on the road so to speak as you are doing these interviews? >> one day at a time. you know, a lot of emotions run through my head as i was watching that speech and wondering what affect, if any it might have. i think we were testing the old maxim that there is no such thing as bad publicity. but what i do know is that when clint has a good script and he has a little time to rehearse, he can kill. and that's what he does in this movie. [laughter] >> gavin: so i imagine, but, i mean, you were watching it and going i have my movie coming out, clint is the superstar in this movie and now i know this is going to be a layer of discussion every time i go? >> yeah. yeah. i was thinking, thank you clint. thank you for letting me get into that. >> gavin: politics incorrect indirectly does it play a huge role in terms of the folks that you come in contact with? the fact that clint is a well
11:26 pm
known republican do folks that you work with say i love him or i don't like his politics or does none of that play any role in the terms of the work? >> in terms of work, i don't think so. everybody in hollywood, they have their ideas and people are naturally pretty outspoken in this business. but when it comes down to it. it's an industry like any other. and we have all got different political ideas but we come together for a reason to make a movie and try to make a success out of it. and all of that is set aside. i mean, all of us in this project have completely different political viewpoints between aim justin, clint and myself. and yet we try to be an example of americans of how you can all come together and work successfully. >> gavin: trouble with the curve is premiering tonight all across the country. and robert, i am really honored to have you here. >> thank you very much. >> gavin: good luck with the film. >> thank you very much. pleasure. >> gavin: thank you. sir ken robinson's ted talks have been moved sewed a viewed a remarkable 14 million plus times but he's not done talking about the
11:27 pm
failures in public education not yet. stick around and learn why so many people think his thoughts are worth spreading.
11:28 pm
11:29 pm
it's go time. what time is it rob? oh, then it's go. go. go. go time. anybody? anybody? what time is it? oh, right. go time! >> gavin: i have long been curious to sit down with one of the most watched ted talkers in history. sir ken robinson. he lights the room on fire with his fresh thinking on creativity. education, and ants waited ants waited learning. from liverpool to los angeles he's on a mission to turn education upside down and inside out. ken, it's fabulous to have you here on the show talking about the most important topic that we could talk about and that's education, and it's interesting going through a lot of the work that you have done on education that you are not a reformist per se, but the notion of reform to
11:30 pm
you is the real change that needs to say not a evolution but a revolution in education. >> i think i tried. governments all around the world are reforming education but it's a slow process. and honestly doesn't seem to be working very well. we live in america for almost 11 years and score invites with no child left behind. the drop out rate has not improved. international comparisons are still very poor. and i think in almost every field. almost in any fields if it wasn't working you would stop and change. >> when you look at reform, do you look at it through the prism of what i would argue is the stale debates between labor unions and teacher unions and the reform and the thundering of reform. do you see it as honored of
11:31 pm
magnitude shift way from that debate to a more substantive debate from moving from an instrument model to a whole new model. >> you can't ignore the structural issues. and you are right, a lot of fill an trippistsphilanthropists are getting more involved. pumping millions, sometimes billions of dollars in the shift. but if you back the wrong horse it's still going to lose. i think that a lot of the attempts at reform are focusing on the wrong issues. >> gavin: what is that? how is that? you mentioned the rest of the world is going through the same process, but not necessarily the same problems that we have. but recognizing that we are living in, what, a different would than the world where we designed the educational system as we know it. >> yes. well i think one of the best examples of that is the value of a college degree. i was born in 1950, i know you don't believe that, gavin. >> i can sense that. >> gavin: it's obvious. >> but the lighting in here is good. but i -- you know, when i left
11:32 pm
college in '72, with a college degree you were guaranteed a job, i mean, the only reason you wouldn't have a job with a college degree is if you didn't want a job. frankly i didn't want a job as it turned turns out but i knew i could get one and it didn't matter what the degree was in, it was the fact of a degree that mattered. nowadays, we have kids suffering at both end of the spectrum. you have kids that don't make it through high school, very disadvantages. you have kids that do everything right and leave the ivy league with great degrees and can't finds work. and many of saddled with huge amounts of debts as a consequence, the students-debt load is $1.3 trillion. the reason i mention that, is if the dominant story of education which is work hard go to college, be prosperous is not true then it's worth looking at fundamentally different approaches to educational change and the big difference, i can just say is i think as you say it's a shift in the old
11:33 pm
industrial economy to the new one, it's not because degrees are easier to get nowful it's not because kids are less smart on the contemporary, they work harder than i did at college, i know, a lot of them. they are tested much more. it's just that there are so many of them. i mean, that's one of the big problems, degrees are a currency. and the lack of like other currency they inflate if you have more and more people with degrees, they are worth less and less. meanwhile the system for which the currents education system was designed, has shifted. we are not in an industrial economy anymore. we are in a knowledge economy and we haven't made that transition. that's why i say reform isn't really adequate. it's about fundamentally rethinking what we are doing. >> gavin: so you have a commodity. one size fits all model to education so the idea of moving way from that and customizing personalized education is relevant now to the world we are living in in particular. but let's go back to 1950s and
11:34 pm
'60s. there is a sense that we had a robust educational system back then but it was built on the same foundation that exists today. was it relevant for the times? is that the points? we take about going back. you are not arguing to go back to where we had an an education an educational foundation in the '50s and the '60s because it's not relevant to the to the world we live in. >> there is no golden age of education, people do that in music and it just means what was popular. there were great schools and terrible schools in the 1950s so i wouldn't want to edge age rate it but what was true is if you went through that system and went to college you would do well. that's not true anymore. and so that's worth rethinking. i am arguing for creating the heart of everything that we do at schools and connecting people with what they are good at. there are some things we need to learn but for some kids it's computer science and some people
11:35 pm
it's modern dance and if you were to take the arts and american -- outof american culture there wouldn't be a lot left that you would be proud of. you would eviscerate it. that's what is happening. i a not arguing for one over the other but a broad approach for recognizing if kids find things that they are good at they tend to get better at everything because their tailings are up and the light goes tkpwo*ez on in their eyes and again and get excited about learning. it seems from every point of view if you minimize the curriculum it's too short sided sighted. if done starreddize it you correct the basic principal of making it interesting. >> gavin: we have to take a quick break but when we come back we'll talk about solutions and ma needs to happen to scale change in the classroom.
11:36 pm
11:37 pm
11:38 pm
>> gavin: we are back with sir ken robinson thought leader in edge case, pub pick ric speaker and author of several best selling books including the
11:39 pm
element how find are our passion changes everything. is an argument moving way from sort of reading is, wrighting writing a ritz ma tickarithmetic back to problem solving. how do you see it scaling and moving away to something that's much more unique students where they are move way from the silos and the batching that you speak of. how do you actually begin to make these fundamental changes? >> it's a complex shift. you mentioned in of the big structural issues earlier. i am not stepping away from those, but putting aside kind of issues of tenure and union bargaining and all of that. you can't leave those out of the equation completely. but getting back to the basics and how you personalize it, there are a couple of ways, one of them is all good teaching was
11:40 pm
always personalized. it was always. and i am sure you remember great teachers that you had. >> gavin: of course. >> don't you? dean-y, i remember them specifically. >> why them? >> gavin: for all of the reasons that you argue for. it was because they showed an interesting. >> yeah. and they gave a damn and got you and could see what was in. great teachers always did that. great people aren't just people that know stuff, they know kids and how to engage them and excite them. one answer is to let people do their job and to get off their back. what has happened over the past 10 years is that the government here and it's not just in america, by the way. i say we are from britain but live here now. it's the same thing happening now. taken more and more to the certainty, much more command control model of standard ionization, when you do that you have to invents a bureaucracy so that all of these levels of
11:41 pm
controls can be extended out into the system. schools have been given less discretion principals have less discretion, the people who do the job are becoming increasingly did he professionalizes. >> i sit here as a lieutenant governor, policy maker. how do we educate people like me to do what we need to do in a great dadramatic self and measure our efficacy? >> it's absolutely accountability is vital in every field. particularly in education because we are dealing with people's lives and parents' hopes and kids futures, that's true. i think the world scaling is interesting here. because one of my worries is that as i say the current systemscurrentsystems education were developed in the 19th century. it's worth remember, because most countries didn't have systems of public education before then.
11:42 pm
it's a recent innovation and they came about largely because of the growth of the industrial economy. and the culture organizational do you recall is draw from industrial i. theyindustrialism. they are like fax tries, it remains true, the ringing bells moving through by edge group. it's the model is pathetic to the kind of education i am talking about? you can set up a framework of accountability as long as people are giving the freedom to meet their responsibilities. you can't give people responsibilities that hobble them from meeting them. you have to trust the professional and that will be a while so it doesn't mean to me homogenizing. it means setting out high standards and then supporting professional development in order to meet them.
11:43 pm
and by the way, it's the only way to do it. if this current system worked, we wouldn't be having the conversation. if it was all great, there would be nothing else to talk about. the fact is it's not great. people are draining out the system and doing it i think for the reasons i am talking about. and there is no alternative to improving the teaching profession, everything other country has discovered that. there is no alternative to raising standards to engaging kids in their own education we know that. if you strip those two things way, you get what we've got. we have created a problem here. and we are now trying to solve the problem we have created if we could rethink the structure somehow, and i think recognize that every kid in the system has a story. weak talk about the drop out rate in statistical terms every kid that drops out has a reason, they wake up wondering what today is going to be and whether they are excited degreesed about by it. they have their own issues and as soon as we get down to that
11:44 pm
level. that kind of granular level and you get down no that level and you need to stretch it. it's build for efficiency, not for quality. quality is falling -- >> gavin: everybody has the capacity to be fully expressive. everyone has -- i mean, the educational system today hurts the talent, the latent talent that's inside of all of us. >> did benefits a lot of people, don't get me wrong about that. there are a lot of people that look back on their education and say it was terrific and it's a great liberator. i mean, i know all kind of people that did well at school. i am not saying you have to fail at school to have a life. and, of course, it does well for some of the people for whom it was designed our system is predicated on the narrow intel general, academic ability. but that's great. academic ability is important. but it's not the same thing as intelligence. it's not a synonym. i mean, academic ability is a
11:45 pm
capacity for certain type of reasoning. and it's why kids spent a the lots of time writing he is essays and doing certain sorts of math. in fact they spent time their doing clerical work. if you look at the richness of human culture. i was looking. in australia, couple of things you can check this on the internet. in their 20s there is a picture of a group of kids there in the same school, small school, central to the town. just an example of diversity. on the front row is lodewyck, who went onto become probably the most mean tphrao*upb shall philosopher of the 20th century. retired i think at the age of 50
11:46 pm
from fill identify because he had nothing else to say. i did philosophy, i am going to open a bag of -- i opened it. ing and very few works but changed the foundations of modern thought just one afternoon. standing behind him a little bit to his right is another pupil. who had a completely different life is adolf hitler in the same school at the same time, the age of well or 13. talk about diversity, rarely you know, i mean, you need different teaching styles is all i think am saying. if you are dealing with those two. but the -- i was talking to the mayor, i think it was the mayor, i am trying to think if i if that's the correct title for him. but we were meeting in the assume trueassume true assume the true us offers. beautiful ceilings, carved
11:47 pm
walnut table. ornate carpets paintings along the walls and a computer on his desk and is i have talking about intelligence, and he said to me, but where is the evidence of this? i said well, look around you. >> gavin: good point. >> look around you where do you think this stuff came from? this isn't an he is say, this is the ability to make things, to do things, to be practical to create beauty in the world. create music that moves you, to create paintings that speak to you and create machines that work. and none of these things feature in a conventional scores, it's the feeling if it can't be written in an he is say then an he is a an he is he is an he is say. it benefits certainly sorts of profession. but we have ended up with this insane division between academic and so-called vocational courses. so you know middle class families discourage their kids
11:48 pm
from any kind of career that might involve using their hands. you know, they all -- famously they want them all to become lawyers or doctors or accountants, doctors use their hands but you see what i am saying. >> gavin: got it. >> when actually, a great city like this, like san francisco has been literally built through the imaginations and skills and hands of the people who have been living here. and if you have an education system that marginalizes that en or worse demeans it, then that's a terrible waste that we are creating. >> gavin: in our final couple of minutes, you reminds me of a story i read, where you were in san francisco, and you met a firefighter and at a book signing that i think under scores your point. >> yes. >> gavin: what was that? what happened? >> i am not the best of telling it. no, no no. >> gavin: you were signing your book. he comes up to you -- >> i'll tell it. no, i was signing this very book rather remarkable work
11:49 pm
here called the element by the way. >> gavin: yes. finding your passion changes everything. >> it does indeed. you know, you have done this. you only get a minute at the book signing with people. and so just i often and people what they do and if they enjoy it. and it's interesting to me how often people would say i love it it. without being prompted, because some people just love what they do. >> gavin: yeah. >> and others just kind of put up with it. and that's what the book is about. >> gavin: right. >> how that happens. so i am signing this book and i said what do you do i says fireman, i said how long since i left school. when doesn't to become a fireman? he said i always wanted to be a fireman. this is danville, by the way. >> gavin: mere by. >> and he said the trouble is when i was at elementary school it was a problem for me because all of the kids wanted to be a fireman so they indulged me but i said i really wanted to be a fireman, he said when he got to high school in the senior year they were saying what are your
11:50 pm
plans now. which college are you going to? he said he was applying to the fire service. and this teacher really ripped him off about it. he said you are wasting your life. you could do much greater things than that. why would you spend your life doing that when you could go to college and he said i felt really foolish because, you know, it was in front of all my class, he said anyway i did it because it's what i wanted to do do. ted been listening to the talk i had been giving he said i was thinking about this teacher recently as you were speaking because six months ago i saved his life. he said he was in a car wreck and my unit was called out and i pulled him out of the car and i saved his wife's life as well. i said he thinks better of me now. >> gavin: you are not kidding. yeah. that's a wonderful way to end. ken, thank you so much for being on the show. >> it's a great pleasure. thank you. >> gavin: which we come back, i'll talk to an empty chair. just gavin is next. they're doing this this corruption based on corruption based on corruption. >>that's an understatement, eliot.
11:51 pm
11:52 pm
11:53 pm
11:54 pm
>> gavin: i just want you to know how happy i am you are sitting there all alone watching the show. no, seriously i do appreciate you. i really do. the invisible awed against. you noaudience, many ofus are guilty of obsessing over clint eastwood's odd speech to the invisible obama. but let's not forget his long and extraordinary career, you might say the same thing about facebook the company's disappointing i.p.o. remained on people's minds. if the real story of facebook is going from zero to almost 1 billion users in less than a decade and forever, of course, changing the way we connect online. blame it on our short attention spans, our hid line driven new cycles and the constant buzz of social messaging but if you are only hearing the hype you are
11:55 pm
not getting the full story and that's a dangerous thing especially in politics, you want to climb it now where the candidates guest mostly judge odd their reaction to the latest and breaking news, wouldn't it be better for all of us if we based our decisions on facts and data and perspective and a full body of work and as sir ken rob sin pits it more important to be a deeper view, think independently find your passion and your natural talent will emerge. and finally our own decisions going the movies, voting or facebook, it should be base on the facts not hype. please help us continues our conversation on website, facebook twitter and football twitter and google plus. >>focus on the folks that are making a difference, that are not just dreamers, but doers. >>(narrator) join the conversation.
11:56 pm
what we need are people prepared for the careers of our new economy. by 2025, we could have 20 million jobs without enough college graduates to fill them. that's why at devry university to help make sure everyone's ready with the know how we need for a new tomorrow. [ male announcer ] make sure america's ready. make sure you're ready. at ♪ ♪
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on